[168543] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Fw: ipv6 newbie question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Stonebraker)
Wed Jan 29 13:10:48 2014
From: Jack Stonebraker <Jack.Stonebraker@mygrande.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:10:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1401290940540.11209@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Agreed,
We do a /64 allocation which is reserved for each point to point link, but =
then subnet it to a /126 for actual use. That way we've got a /64 availabl=
e if it's ever needed, while keeping the broadcast domain small for now whe=
n we don't.
JJ Stonebraker
IP Network Engineering
Grande Communications
512.878.5627
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.org]=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:44 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Fw: ipv6 newbie question
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 17:35, Philip Lavine wrote:
>> Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip
>> (or for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a
>> statically configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
>
> how are you going to set up the bgp session from the remote side to an
> eui-64 auto configured address on your side?
>
> best use static here. And make sure to disable RA (with fire, i.e. disab=
le
> send + receive + answering solicited requests) and EUI64. If it's a poin=
t
> to point link, use a /126 or /127 netmask.
+1. I've seem some providers do /64 on their point-to-point links. I=20
don't have an issue with that, and the whole /64 vs /126 or /127 debate=20
has been thoroughly beaten into the ground. No need to re-hash it.
I have never seen a provider use a pseudo-dynamic address on an=20
interface/BGP peer. Having to reconfigure a BGP session because a=20
provider did a hardware upgrade or moved my link to a new interface would=20
not make me happy.
jms